Editor's note

• Author: Editor's note
• Pages: 309-310

FRONTIERS OF LAW IN CHINA

VOL. 14 SEPTEMBER 2019 NO. 3

DOI 10.3868/s050-008-019-0015-5

FOCUS

RETHINKING PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

EDITOR’S NOTE

YU Wenguang*

Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) have experienced several challenges since their

spread around the world in the 1990s. China provides a very good example. After a

period of fast development from 2014, PPPs in China suddenly decreased in 2018. The

initial euphoria surrounding PPP has been replaced by criticism and concerns caused by

the overuse, misuse, and failure of PPPs. Similar phenomena can be observed in other

countries as well. For example, in 2018, the European Court of Auditors slammed the

performance of PPPs after assessing twelve PPP projects in several EU countries, and

even reached the conclusion that more intensive and widespread use of PPP should not be

promoted until the issues identified in its report are addressed and its recommendations

implemented.1 The many alleged benefits of PPP that once made it popular, such as

effective public resources management, high quality and timely provision of public

services, and appropriate risk allocation, hardly matched the reality. Against this

background, it appears necessary to rethink PPP.

Among various issues worth rethinking, the three articles collected in this Focus are

devoted to three questions that are critical throughout the life cycle of a PPP. First is the

question of choosing PPP as an appropriate procurement option within the constitutional

framework (Hartmut Bauer and Michael Meier, Green Light for PPP on German

Motorways?). The second question pertains to governmental obligations and

responsibilities in implementing PPP (GAO Junjie, The Government’s Regulatory

Obligations to Public Utilities Franchise). The third question is about dispute resolution

mechanisms in PPP projects (YU Wenguang, Dispute Resolution Mechanisms of PPP

Agreements in China: A Research Based on Judicial Decisions).

Although the analysis of each individual paper might be based on a specific legal

order, when combined, the papers offer valuable material for a comparative and empirical

* (喻文光) Dr. jur., Faculty of Law, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Associate

Professor, School of Law, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China; Researcher, Law and Technology

Institute, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China. Contact: yu_wenguang@hotmail.com

1 European Court of Auditors, Public Private Partnerships in the EU: Widespread Shortcomings and

Limited Benefits, special report pursuant to Art. 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU, Para. 8, No. 9/2018.